WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

  #1 three year old claims he's gone anyway.

One thing I brought up before is that I'm not in real high confidence about much of any of the official or even non-official rifle related timelines.   Paul had a lot to say about that which I'm still reviewing.  For one thing, Marina is clearly an early meth head or so scared of deportation that her testimony on matters of potential dispute can only be taken with a grain of sale, agree or disagree?   What I mean to say is that if Marina says the rifle showed up in the winter or spring or on such and such day, well then, that serves to my mind as one reference point but probably earns no higher than 50% confidence.  Likewise, anything she says about guns in blankets, pictures she takes, and General Walker are, again in my opinion only, noteworthy but not the end of the story on the matter.  

many thanks,

Jason

#1... three year old claims....

I have no idea what that is in reference to.

 

Regarding Marina....

One of my shortcomings is that I cannot tell when people are lying, for the most part. When I see her on film, I believe her. 

So, I am left with the knowledge that there are lies, and I have to sort it out the best I can. I also have to rely on credible, sceptical researchers.

[Jason Ward]

9 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

#1... three year old claims....

I have no idea what that is in reference to.

 

Regarding Marina....

One of my shortcomings is that I cannot tell when people are lying, for the most part. When I see her on film, I believe her. 

So, I am left with the knowledge that there are lies, and I have to sort it out the best I can. I also have to rely on credible, sceptical researchers.

I see; thanks for admitting what some might call a weakness - although it could also be seen as a gentle, trustworthy mind.

You know, Marina is living in a modest house in suburban Dallas - Rockwall, to be exact, last time I checked.   I've driven by as maybe 10000 others have.   She's getting up there and I have to believe she still has plenty useful to say (I know she sometimes speaks, has given interviews, etc.); but I imagine she'd get a 7 figure book deal.  So much of the WR is dependent on her testimony, which in turn still fuels LNs to this day.   If she wanted to come out and say it was all true, fine, thats still helpful.    Marina, if you're reading this, please write a book or het a good ghostwriter to compose your thoughts.

 

Jason

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Very much appreciated, thanks.   I think your points here are reasonable although as we've touched on already, I think if the Mexico trip was in support of the assassination, it would have been planned and executed as well as the gunmen's plan of action on 22 November.  Mexico was a disaster if Hoover's already saying on day 1 that there's something fishy about it, i.e. 2+ Oswalds.

thanks again,
Jason

Jason,

I agree with what you said  (highlighted in red).

However, I don't agree that Mexico City was a disaster. I believe that it was designed to make it look like Oswald went to MC to meet with Cuban and Russian co-conspirators. Not to get visas (or not JUST to get visas). When the FBI first saw the evidence, they were supposed to conclude that Oswald went there to get visas... which they did conclude. The FBI was then supposed to figure out that the phone calls were made by an impostor, not Oswald...  which they did figure out. The FBI was then supposed to investigate further and discover that Oswald's true reason for the trip was to negotiate the assassination with the Cubans and Kostikov. Which they did investigate, but they decided to reject this part of the story because at that point in time they were not interested in discovering a conspiracy.

I believe that the Mystery Man (surveillance photo) was actually a Cuban or KGB agent (who was known to the CIA, but remains unknown to us) and the Blond Oswald was Nikolai Leonov. Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue were beaten by Mexican Police (for the CIA) to get them to say that the Oswald looked like Leonov. This was done to make their testimony look suspicious, and that it was actually Leonov who visited the embassy, not Oswald. Again, because Oswald wasn't really there to get visas, but rather to plan the assassination with his Cuban and Russian friends. He also attended a twist party with his Cuban friends and was romantically involved with Sylvia Duran. (Of course, none of this was true.)

If my hypothesis is correct, then the Mexico City subplot would have succeeded had it not been  for Johnson's decision to make Oswald a Lone Nut.

(My hypothesis is in its formative stages. I need to learn more  about Mexico City and study all the evidence carefully to see if all the pieces fit.)

 

[Mathias Baumann]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

GS: However when Hoover told anyone who would listen that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City the CIA` and FBI had to back track and place Oswald in Mexico City after the fact. It was a necessity to deal with the impersonation.

I don't understand this statement.  The actual circumstances of what happened seem to me to be contrary.

From 11/23 on, Hoover had serious problems with the Oswald in Mexico City story.  As both David Josephs and John Armstrong prove in abundance, the FBI was going crazy trying to find evidence he was there.  This is why after she furnished the Walker Note, Ruth Paine then supplied artifacts that Oswald was in MC.  This was after a two day search by about eight officers who missed them.  Later on, much to Liebeler's chagrin, PJM was till presenting evidence Oswald was there.

Hoover understood in about six weeks that he and fallen for a CIA cover story about Oswald in MC.  John Newman first uncovered the marginalia in a memo Hoover wrote where he called the CIA story about Oswald in MC a "snow job".  Was Oswald there?  Maybe, maybe not.  But he did not do what the CIA said he did.  Which means they had to create a cover story that he did.  This included Phillips using his assets to incriminate LHO in a Cuban plot--another cover story that fell apart.

Part of that cover story  is  Goodpasture and Elden Rudd transporting that phony tape to the Texas border.  Except it was not even a good impersonation.  So Hoover wrote that fatal memo discrediting it.  When Mark Lane gave that memo to Bob Tanenbaum, he confronted Phillips with it.  Phillips read it, folded it, put it in his jacket pocket, and walked out of the room.  This led to the actual end of Sprague/Tanenbaum--the last chance to actually solve the JFK case.

Mexico City is the key to the crime. Just as figuring out who Oswald is in New Orleans is the other key.  Phillips and McCord were running the anti FPCC campaign for the CIA. Oswald was not a wannabe.  He was an undercover agent.  And anyone who resists that today does not know the whole story about him.

Jim,

I think you're right about Mexico City being the key to the assassination. The conspirators certainly knew about Oswald's trip and his association with KGB agent Kostikov.

But does that mean the fake phone call was part of a deliberate effort to frame Oswald? In my opinion this assumption does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

First of all, Oswald was not yet working at the School Book Depository. In fact he was trying to leave America. So how could the conspirators possibly know he would be at the right time and place? I guess you could argue that Oswald was just a pawn they could move wherever they wanted to. But the evidence does not seem to support this. If we look closely at the transcript of the  first"fake" phone call we notice that

- the caller does not introduce himself, which could indicate that the impostor had not yet even learned Oswald's name. If the purpose of the call was to incriminate Oswald the impostor would drop his name, wouldn't he?

- the caller only seems to have a vague idea of what Oswald has done at the Soviet Embassy. In fact it reads as if the fake Oswald is trying to acquire information.

- Kostikov's name does not come up at all.

So it appears that the purpose of this phone call was to find out what Oswald had been doing at the embassy, not an effort to link him to Soviet intelligence. The caller had obviously not yet learned of the Kostikov-Duran phone call, didn't know Oswald's name, didn't know he had NOT filled out a visa application and did NOTknow of his involvement with Kostikov. This suggests that whoever was behind the phone call was not privy to whatever Oswald was doing in Mexico City.

I think it's a distinct possibility that the plotters learned about Oswald's association with Kostikov AFTER he came back to Dallas and THEN decided that his involvement in the assassination was desirable.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Mathias Baumann]

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

Your position here and mine are very close.  Here's my feedback:

1. The Walker Team had the ally of Dallas FBI agent James Hosty who could take Oswald off the FBI radar whenever he wanted.  They could not move Oswald at will, but they came very close.  Guy Banister and David Ferrie were the main manipulators, as Jim Garrison amply showed.

2. I agree with you 100% that Oswald was just one of many possible patsies, and was NOT indispensable to the plot.

3. I agree with you 100% that the actual number of plotters was only a handful of people -- mostly Dallas locals, and some New Orleans locals, and a few rogues from the Bay of Pigs era. 

4. J. Edgar Hoover had access and control of all Oswald files -- but the JFK plotters didn't want a LNer result.  Hoover insisted on it.  Hoover won.

5. I agree with you 100% that Oswald was a "wanna-be-spook."  That's what made him the perfect Patsy.

6. I agree about the "rogue" CIA agents -- since two confessed -- but the Mafia could never do what the local Minutemen in Dallas could do.  The rogues were in cahoots with Dallas paramilitary Right wingers, IMHO. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

I think you also believe that David Morales was involved in the assassination. I believe he may have been one of the men who tried to buy trucks from the Bolton Ford dealership. One of the men was described as a muscular latino who had a scar over his left eye brow.

I think I've found something in a photograph of Morales that could be a scar. Do you know of any other evidence that could corroborate this?

 

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

...I'm afraid I don't undertand your last sentence...'the connection with New Orleans...." As I said I don't have an evolving CT to any level of certainty, but I will just try to answer you by saying that everything in New Orleans is undoubtedly Castro oriented only, there is only weak-to-non-existent connection to LHO in New Orleans and his role as the patsy; he could have just as well been in general Marxist legend building for as yet unknown anti-castro/anti-USSR pursuits unrelated to JFK.

thanks again,

Jason

Jason,

When I say, "the connection with New Orleans," I'm referring to the Fake FPCC Resumé that Oswald took to Mexico City, and left with the Cuban Consulate there.  It was reproduced in the Lopez Report.  It had newspaper clippings from New Orleans newspapers, showing that Oswald: (1) was arrested in a street brawl with Cuban Exiles; (2) was on a radio program there extolling the FPCC; and (3) was on a TV program there extolling the FPCC.

Since that FPCC was Fake, then Oswald's Resumé was also Fake.  Yet he took it to Mexico City's Cuban Consulate.  This is a primary document.  It connects New Orleans with Mexico City very directly.   What do you make of that?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

... What I was talking about were the inflammatory stories like...

Oswald's meeting with Kostikov in the Russian embassy -- a person who the CIA painted as a KGB assassin --

And Oswald's follow-up letter to the Russian embassy in Washington mentioning that meeting. 

It's obvious that these were attempts to make it appear that Russia and Cuba were behind the assassination.

Sandy,

On these points I agree with you 100%.  

That said, I still believe that Oswald really met with Kostikov and really wrote the "Russian Embassy Letter".   Every Patsy is an unwitting accomplice to his betrayers.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald crystalized for somebody before New Orleans.  He was being sheep dipped there and in Mexico City. 

Ron,

In my reading, James Hosty held the key Oswald files as 1963 began.   James Hosty mentions General Walker in his book, Assignment Oswald (1986).  After the Walker shooting (which I regard as historical fact, with Oswald and one other person as a shooting team) James Hosty would be the likely person to make Lee Harvey Oswald into a target.

It is no accident that David Ferrie links up with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans only days after the Walker shooting.   Edwin Walker and James Hosty were working together, as I read the events.  Oswald was made a prime candidate for Patsy the day he moved back to New Orleans. 

Oswald was sheep-dipped in New Orleans.  Mexico City was only the final stage of the sheep-dip.

The Walker shooting -- that's when Oswald was first targeted, in my reading.  He was crystalized (as Jason puts it) in late September, according to Harry Dean.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

 Paul, thanks again for your kind indulgence to my newbie ways and your polite conversation with me.   I just want to get a point of clarity about your position . Is it your feeling that the New Orleans cell had always the assassination in mind ? And in fact that the whole raison d'être for organizing the New Orleans group was the assassination? 

 I ask because it is my impression that the New Orleans group started as a typical anti-Castro effort but at some point along the way became sucked into the assassination conspiracy , perhaps even to the point where the assassination was their sole unifying purpose . As always I'm not trying to float a complete CT of my own, I'm just trying to get input on certain details I find ambiguous . 

Jason

Jason,

1.  Do I believe the New Orleans cell always had the JFK assassination in mind?

1.1.  This is an fuzzy question, because of the account told by Harry Dean, who personally knew Loran Hall and Larry Howard.   Harry Dean was also a member of the Minutemen in Southern California, 1962-1963, and he told me that the Minutemen would meet weekly for war game exercises in the hills near Hemet, California.  At every meeting, said Harry, there was scuttlebutt banter of a JFK assassination.  At every single meeting.  So, in that sense, as a generic wish-dream, yes, of course, I believe that the New Orleans Anti-Castro cell that created the Fake FPCC, certainly had the JFK assassination in mind -- always.

1.2.  On the other hand, your question might mean -- did the New Orleans cell always have a Settled Plan for the JFK assassination.  In that case, my answer would be, No, of course not.  That plan developed only slowly.  Joseph Milteer told Willie Somerset about it sometime in September, 1963, IIRC.  That was probably the time it began to crystalize.

1.3.  The reason for the New Orleans cell was the same as the reason for all the Anti-Castro training camps around the USA.   They wanted to invade Cuba, of course -- but to gather more money and help they also spread rumors that the Cubans wanted to invade the USA.  (This urban legend became a feature movie in 1984, starring Patrick Swayze, namely, Red Dawn.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

I think you also believe that David Morales was involved in the assassination. I believe he may have been one of the men who tried to buy trucks from the Bolton Ford dealership. One of the men was described as a muscular latino who had a scar over his left eye brow.

I think I've found something in a photograph of Morales that could be a scar. Do you know of any other evidence that could corroborate this?

Mathias,

Sorry, I don't have any evidence about the Bulton Ford dealership.  As for David Morales, I do believe he was involved neck-deep in the JFK plot, not only in Miami and Dallas, but also in New Orleans.  Tommy Graves had a thread on this, "Neck-Scratcher," in which he showed in film that David Morales was on Canal Street with Lee Harvey Oswald when he was passing out FPCC fliers.   I challenged Tommy, but I later accepted his argument and evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

...I'm not in real high confidence about much of any of the official or even non-official rifle related timelines.   Paul had a lot to say about that which I'm still reviewing.  

For one thing, Marina is clearly an early meth head or so scared of deportation that her testimony on matters of potential dispute can only be taken with a grain of salt, agree or disagree?  

What I mean to say is that if Marina says the rifle showed up in the winter or spring or on such and such day, well then, that serves to my mind as one reference point but probably earns no higher than 50% confidence.  

Likewise, anything she says about guns in blankets, pictures she takes, and General Walker are, again in my opinion only, noteworthy but not the end of the story on the matter.  

many thanks,

Jason

Jason,

Just to be clear -- I accept everything that Marina Oswald said under oath.  She told the truth as she knew it.  Every word of her sworn testimony to both the WC and the HSCA reflects her honest memories.

In my reading, it is impossible to solve the JFK conspiracy mystery without her testimony.  I regard as fatally flawed every CT that discounts Marina's testimony.

I challenge everybody who disputes Marina Oswald's sworn testimony to provide material evidence.  They never do -- they offer conjecture.

Nobody was closer to Lee Harvey Oswald than Marina Oswald.  The only times Marina Oswald was mistaken was when Lee Harvey Oswald lied to her -- but still, she honestly reported what he told her -- lies and all (e.g. that he always worked alone, always walked or took the bus, and that he buried his rifle).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Jason Ward]

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

When I say, "the connection with New Orleans," I'm referring to the Fake FPCC Resumé that Oswald took to Mexico City, and left with the Cuban Consulate there.  It was reproduced in the Lopez Report.  It had newspaper clippings from New Orleans newspapers, showing that Oswald: (1) was arrested in a street brawl with Cuban Exiles; (2) was on a radio program there extolling the FPCC; and (3) was on a TV program there extolling the FPCC.

Since that FPCC was Fake, then Oswald's Resumé was also Fake.  Yet he took it to Mexico City's Cuban Consulate.  This is a primary document.  It connects New Orleans with Mexico City very directly.   What do you make of that?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

What I make of that is that the guy calling himself Oswald wanted to establish himself as something pretty rare in his day: someone who was intellectually on board with communism AND willing to work on it, however modest and flakey his "work" in New Orleans was.  I honestly think that's the end of what we can be certain about with the Fake FPCC CV and it's employment in Mexico as certification of "Oswald's" American Communist pro-Castro legend.

I don't see that this ties him nor the whole Mexican adventure in to the assassination.  It could be a step towards sending him to Cuba or back to the USSR - keeping in mind he had already initiated in the Spring of 63 a return to Moscow.  It could be a screw up, keeping in mind the CIA screws up at least as much of the rest of us.   It could be a step for infiltration into US communist groups, small though they are at this point.   It could be just the general nurturing and gardening necessary to overcome the Soviet-Cuban rightful suspicion of anyone who claims to be a fellow traveler.   The assassination link is weak because LHO can go so many different ways from Mexico.

Some of the points I think which indicate it was not with certainty part of the assassination is that Hoover on day 1 is already saying there's something fishy about the Mexico thing, including possibly 2+ Oswalds.   The picture fiasco is of course nearly fatal for the hope Mexico City somehow "helps" sell Oswald as a commie nut ready to kill a US president.   The laughably obvious way they retroactively had Alvarado claim he say money changing hands tells me that whatever the first purpose of the Mexico trip was, they only belatedly realized that it needed to fold into the assassination some how.  It just doesn't smell like assassination was the main destination at the time of Mexico, although I certainly concede Oswald could have been in the running for some suicidal role.

thanks for your kind conversation

Jason

Edited August 17, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

On 8/16/2017 at 1:00 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

1.  Do I believe the New Orleans cell always had the JFK assassination in mind?

1.1.  This is an fuzzy question, because of the account told by Harry Dean, who personally knew Loran Hall and Larry Howard.   Harry Dean was also a member of the Minutemen in Southern California, 1962-1963, and he told me that the Minutemen would meet weekly for war game exercises in the hills near Hemet, California.  At every meeting, said Harry, there was scuttlebutt banter of a JFK assassination.  At every single meeting.  So, in that sense, as a generic wish-dream, yes, of course, I believe that the New Orleans Anti-Castro cell that created the Fake FPCC, certainly had the JFK assassination in mind -- always.

1.2.  On the other hand, your question might mean -- did the New Orleans cell always have a Settled Plan for the JFK assassination.  In that case, my answer would be, No, of course not.  That plan developed only slowly.  Joseph Milteer told Willie Somerset about it sometime in September, 1963, IIRC.  That was probably the time it began to crystalize.

1.3.  The reason for the New Orleans cell was the same as the reason for all the Anti-Castro training camps around the USA.   They wanted to invade Cuba, of course -- but to gather more money and help they also spread rumors that the Cubans wanted to invade the USA.  (This urban legend became a feature movie in 1984, starring Patrick Swayze, namely, Red Dawn.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

 

Paul,

Many thanks for the kind and detailed reply.

Yes indeed it seems obvious that the Minutemen-Bircher-KKK types, whose ideological offspring showed up in Charlottesville last weekend, always had "kill JFK" rhetoric in place.  I think it is critical to understand where wishes morph into action, if we can, which is in keeping with the reason I started this thread.  Narrowing down the point of time, if possible, will illuminate players and motives from all the chaff of auxiliary players and secondary (or false) motives.  IMO.  Yes, Milteer is a good clue.  All the other advance knowledge type clues I've seen are within the last month or so before Dallas.

Response to 1:3 = Sure, the New Orleans cell was part of the Anti-Castro training camp network.  Two points/questions about that:

1. While perhaps 90% of the manpower was Anti-Castro motivated; how much true Anti-Castro passion did the upper echelons have?  My best analogy might be to invoke those who believe the US invaded Iraq for oil - even though Bush told us it was about fighting terrorism, delivering democracy to an oppressed people, etc.  If we take the cynical view of Bush/Cheney et al., then we would say, sure they are onboard with freedom and democracy, but that was really just a selling point and team-building-exercise.   I've seen you say Bannister is anti-Castro.  But don't you think Bannister (or ShawBertrand?) is the top man in the New Orleans cell?  I mean are they more anti-Castro or anti-Kennedy first; anti-Castro 2nd? There are always shades of truth to most serious points here, but I guess what this boils down to is: How much of the anti-Castro efforts were totally legit anti-Castro efforts from day one, and when and where did this transcend into the assassination effort?
2. Why New Orleans?   Why not just keep everything around Dallas?   Not enough anti-castro feeling?  OR - LHO was sent to New Orleans to build his commie credentials, but at some point (WHEN?) the New Orleans cell gets sucked into the Dallas based assassination plot; such that while nominally still anti-Castro the N.O. cell is now focused on kill JFK.  Who makes this change in focus, when, why....?

I enjoy speaking with you,

Jason

Edited August 17, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

Just to be clear -- I accept everything that Marina Oswald said under oath.  She told the truth as she knew it.  Every word of her sworn testimony to both the WC and the HSCA reflects her honest memories.

In my reading, it is impossible to solve the JFK conspiracy mystery without her testimony.  I regard as fatally flawed every CT that discounts Marina's testimony.

I challenge everybody who disputes Marina Oswald's sworn testimony to provide material evidence.  They never do -- they offer conjecture.

Nobody was closer to Lee Harvey Oswald than Marina Oswald.  The only times Marina Oswald was mistaken was when Lee Harvey Oswald lied to her -- but still, she honestly reported what he told her -- lies and all (e.g. that he always worked alone, always walked or took the bus, and that he buried his rifle).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

OK, I see your point.  I of course very much agree that a sworn affidavit is a factual document for research purposes until proven otherwise - especially when it comes from a dis-interested almost-third-party like Marina.

However, how dis-interested is Marina?  If you read the original source statements given in the days and weeks after 22Nov, there are a lot of flip-flops and contradictions, with, I sense, her general narrative more and more moving towards the desired Lone Nut understanding.  Her immediate responses were in my view catastrophic to the desired WR outcome.  As you say, it is impossible to solve the JFK conspiracy without her testimony.  Keeping in mind our shared dedication to primary sources over conjecture and CT books, do you really discount the idea that Marina is motivated by other than fidelity to the truth?  For one thing, she wants to stay in the US.   They could have sent her back pretty quickly and easily.   For another thing, from what I read, Marina is less than enamored with Oswald, which is part of the reason she moves in with Ruth.   Isn't it somewhere in the record that they had spoken of divorce?   

Just to go contrary to my stated allegiance to primary sources, why not consider that a Russian bride was part and parcel of the Soviet residency objectives?   I'm not saying Oswald's marriage is a total sham, I'm just asking you if you are certain in your heart that Marina doesn't have a few competing motivations after 22Nov besides the truth and Oswald?   Likewise, are you certain Oswald's Russian marriage is an unadulterated love story and not also particularly convenient to someone who hopes to return to Russia, perhaps even gaining Russian citizenship?

Marina is in fact key to the JFK solution, I agree with you.  She is key to the WR so she is inherently key to disproving the WR.   She lives in a modest house in a modest Dallas suburb; yet I bet she could secure a 7 figure book deal....if only.

 

Jason

Edited August 17, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jason,

I agree with what you said  (highlighted in red).

However, I don't agree that Mexico City was a disaster. I believe that it was designed to make it look like Oswald went to MC to meet with Cuban and Russian co-conspirators. Not to get visas (or not JUST to get visas). When the FBI first saw the evidence, they were supposed to conclude that Oswald went there to get visas... which they did conclude. The FBI was then supposed to figure out that the phone calls were made by an impostor, not Oswald...  which they did figure out. The FBI was then supposed to investigate further and discover that Oswald's true reason for the trip was to negotiate the assassination with the Cubans and Kostikov. Which they did investigate, but they decided to reject this part of the story because at that point in time they were not interested in discovering a conspiracy.

I believe that the Mystery Man (surveillance photo) was actually a Cuban or KGB agent (who was known to the CIA, but remains unknown to us) and the Blond Oswald was Nikolai Leonov. Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue were beaten by Mexican Police (for the CIA) to get them to say that the Oswald looked like Leonov. This was done to make their testimony look suspicious, and that it was actually Leonov who visited the embassy, not Oswald. Again, because Oswald wasn't really there to get visas, but rather to plan the assassination with his Cuban and Russian friends. He also attended a twist party with his Cuban friends and was romantically involved with Sylvia Duran. (Of course, none of this was true.)

If my hypothesis is correct, then the Mexico City subplot would have succeeded had it not been  for Johnson's decision to make Oswald a Lone Nut.

(My hypothesis is in its formative stages. I need to learn more  about Mexico City and study all the evidence carefully to see if all the pieces fit.)

 

Thanks, Sandy.

I appreciate your input.  I'll think about what you are saying further and get back to your point if I have a question.  In the meantime, if I'm reading you correctly,  your belief is that the FBI is completely out of the loop before 22 November, right?  Likewise, given that you put Johnson making a decision to make Oswald into a Lone Nut, your thinking is LBJ either knows nothing of the plot OR may have insulated himself so much that he only knows he will be made president and nothing more, right?

 

thanks, 

Jason